Merged: Crabbe Traded to Brk

[Denny Crane]

We are now officially to the point where matching Crabbe's salary was completely pointless if we don't use the trade exception.

Yay...

If we had let him walk last year:
1) We wouldn't have had him for ~30 minutes a game last year
2) We wouldn't have had the chance to see if his growth continued
3) We wouldn't have the TPE (unless the deal turned into a S&T)
4) We wouldn't have anything at all in return for him

I'm not sure how this was somehow a bad move. We didn't have to pay the LT last year, either.

If we had received a TPE last year, and used it, we'd be much further over the LT at this point.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If we had let him walk last year:
1) We wouldn't have had him for ~30 minutes a game last year
2) We wouldn't have had the chance to see if his growth continued
3) We wouldn't have the TPE (unless the deal turned into a S&T)
4) We wouldn't have anything at all in return for him

I'm not sure how this was somehow a bad move. We didn't have to pay the LT last year, either.

If we had received a TPE last year, and used it, we'd be much further over the LT at this point.

1) Couldn't possibly care less.
2) I was wrong, I could have cared less about #1. Couldn't possibly care less about #2
3) Yep--presently the only remaining asset from the signing (as I mentioned)
4) Aside from #3, we still don't, except for ~$3M in dead cap money being paid to Andrew Nicholson for each of the next 7 years.

Him being on the team last year didn't improve the team's future prospects, to the only value that his 2016 signing brings us now is the TPE. As I said before: if it doesn't end up being used, matching his contract accomplished nothing of value.

 

[Denny Crane]

1) Couldn't possibly care less.
2) I was wrong, I could have cared less about #1. Couldn't possibly care less about #2
3) Yep--presently the only remaining asset from the signing (as I mentioned)
4) Aside from #3, we still don't, except for ~$3M in dead cap money being paid to Andrew Nicholson for each of the next 7 years.

Him being on the team last year didn't improve the team's future prospects, to the only value that his 2016 signing brings us now is the TPE. As I said before: if it doesn't end up being used, matching his contract accomplished nothing of value.

Except 30 minutes a game last year is "something of value."

Hindsight is 20-20. Crabbe was a key contributor the season before, especially the playoffs. Enough that BKN wanted him. They still wanted him, even after this so-called horrible season he had. Consider if Crabbe actually wanted to be here and took the next step in his development - I think NO would have found cap space by using other players.

Again, we wouldn't have the TPE if we let him walk last year so we did get something for him ending up in BKN. I'd add that we were a 2nd round team the year before and without a draft pick. The only way to improve was internal (i.e. Crabbe included). The expectations (without hindsight) were improvement over the 2nd round team, results. Letting a key member walk for nothing would have been a downgrade.

As it is, we lost a 30 MPG player who was 2nd in the league in 3pt shooting. Shooting is a most wanted commodity in this league these days.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Except 30 minutes a game last year is "something of value."

Hindsight is 20-20. Crabbe was a key contributor the season before, especially the playoffs. Enough that BKN wanted him. They still wanted him, even after this so-called horrible season he had. Consider if Crabbe actually wanted to be here and took the next step in his development - I think NO would have found cap space by using other players.

Again, we wouldn't have the TPE if we let him walk last year so we did get something for him ending up in BKN. I'd add that we were a 2nd round team the year before and without a draft pick. The only way to improve was internal (i.e. Crabbe included). The expectations (without hindsight) were improvement over the 2nd round team, results. Letting a key member walk for nothing would have been a downgrade.

As it is, we lost a 30 MPG player who was 2nd in the league in 3pt shooting. Shooting is a most wanted commodity in this league these days.

I swear you argue just to argue.

Leave me alone.

 

[dviss1]

We are now officially to the point where matching Crabbe's salary was completely pointless if we don't use the trade exception.

Yay...

Why are people seeing it as pointless? We paid to see if he would improve and he didn't. Cut your losses.

 

[dviss1]

Him being on the team last year didn't improve the team's future prospects, to the only value that his 2016 signing brings us now is the TPE. As I said before: if it doesn't end up being used, matching his contract accomplished nothing of value.

A couple things:

The only reason we know what's bolded is because he was on the team and he didn't become the player we wanted. Had he become the aggressive 6th man we wanted him to be, he might have "earned" his money.

Did you want us to match?

 

[Wizard Mentor]

"Neil should be aggressive."

"He should draft high risk, high reward players - they can be great!"

"Geez, his high risk move didn't pan out, what an idiot!"

"Spending time to see how a player develops is stupid unless they turns into a star!"

"He should be more like San Antonio!"

"I don't care that most of their draft picks don't work out, or that they didn't get Jimmy Butler, or Paul George, or Whiteside!"

"They got LaMarcus instead (oh wait)."

"We don't have an owner that has opinions, Neil can do what he wants (oh wait)."

"Neil is highly respected around the league? Just shows that other GMs are stupid, too - I should be a GM - I know what I'm doing!"

 

[PtldPlatypus]

A couple things:

The only reason we know what's bolded is because he was on the team and he didn't become the player we wanted. Had he become the aggressive 6th man we wanted him to be, he might have "earned" his money.

Did you want us to match?

I can't recall precisely my posts at the time, but I'm thinking that I was in favor of something in the neighborhood of 55M/4, but not down with 75M/4.

Yes, I understand that there was a measure of uncertainty in the signing, but people's job performance isn't measured on their intentions or their reasoning, but on their results. As defensible as the Oden pick, or the Miller/Felton deal, or the Afflalo trade were at the time, all of them hurt the franchise and are generally viewed as such.

I guess I'm just not in favor of expensive lottery tickets. I'm OK with draft picks and rookie deal acquisitions as vehicles for acquiring players because they might become what we hope for them to be. Big dollar signings, in my mind, are for players who have already demonstrated the ability to fill the role intended for them, and are signed based on that expectation. Therefore, if the high-dollar player fails to fulfill that expectation, then it's a scouting/evaluation failure, not simply a risk that didn't pan out.

 

[e_blazer]

There's a reason drivers are taught just to glance at the rear view mirror. It's good to know what's behind you, but more important to concentrate on where you're going.

 

[Minstrel]

There's a reason drivers are taught just to glance at the rear view mirror. It's good to know what's behind you, but more important to concentrate on where you're going.

Yeah, if I had just caused a ten-car pileup, I'd definitely be much more focused on getting the hell away rather than looking back at the wreckage.

 

[e_blazer]

Yeah, if I had just caused a ten-car pileup, I'd definitely be much more focused on getting the hell away rather than looking back at the wreckage.

As I said, keep your eyes on the road at all times except for the occasional glance in the rear view mirror.

 

[Boob-No-More]

We are now officially to the point where matching Crabbe's salary was completely pointless if we don't use the trade exception.

Yay...

We can't really give the matching of Crabbe's contract a final grade until the TPE expires next July 25.

It sounds like you're assuming we won't use the TPE. I think there is a better than 50/50 chance we will. The question is on who and when? There are several inflection points between now and next July 25, when the TPE expires.

1) This off season isn't over yet. We could use the TPE to land a veteran 3 & D player like Courtney Lee or Jared Dudley from a team that is rebuilding. Something may still happen with Carmelo Anthony. Even if we don't get Carmelo, if he's traded, other assets may become available (Eric Gordon) with us acting as a facilitator.

2) Training camp - as teams further asses their rosters and needs, players that don't fit elsewhere may become available.

3) December 15th - when players signed as free agents this summer become trade eligible.

4) January 15th - when players re-signed by their own teams become trade eligible.

5) Trade Deadline

6) 2018 NBA Draft

7) 2018 Summer free agency period

It will all come down to how the team is doing and who becomes available. If the team is playing well enough at the deadline to be in the running for a top 4 seed, I think Neil will go all out and get the best player he can for the TPE, luxury tax be damned. If the team looks like it's going to miss the playoffs, I think Neil will look to use the TPE next summer, either on draft night or during the July free agency period. I do think constantly monitoring who's available and how they can help the team will be Neil's highest priority. He's still got almost 11 months to use that TPE. No need to use it prematurely just to use it. I'm sure Neil has a list of every player who makes less than $12.9 million and has narrowed it down to the 15 - 20 potential targets for using the TPE and will use it when someone who actually makes the team better becomes available.

BNM

 

[PtldPlatypus]

We can't really give the matching of Crabbe's contract a final grade until the TPE expires next July 25.

It sounds like you're assuming we won't use the TPE.

No, I'm assuming nothing. I said exactly what I meant. If we don't use it, we got nothing from Crabbe's signing (last year's "production" notwithstanding). If we use it, then we did, and its value will have to be weighed against the liability generated by acquiring/stretching Nicholson.

 

[Boob-No-More]

No, I'm assuming nothing. I said exactly what I meant. If we don't use it, we got nothing from Crabbe's signing (last year's "production" notwithstanding). If we use it, then we did, and its value will have to be weighed against the liability generated by acquiring/stretching Nicholson.

Still seems like a pessimistic outlook. An optimist would be saying, I can't wait to see who we get with that huge TPE. We should be able to get someone even better than Crabbe, like Eric Gordon, Courtney Lee or Jared Dudley - an established veteran that won't wilt under pressure, be afraid to take a big shot with the game on the line, and disappear during the playoffs. And in Lee's and Dudley's cases, someone who actually improves our perimeter defense.

And like I said, we can't give it a final grade until next July 25...

BNM

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Still seems like a pessimistic outlook. An optimist would be saying, I can't wait to see who we get with that huge TPE. We should be able to get someone even better than Crabbe, like Eric Gordon, Courtney Lee or Jared Dudley - an established veteran that won't wilt under pressure, be afraid to take a big shot with the game on the line, and disappear during the playoffs. And in Lee's and Dudley's cases, someone who actually improves our perimeter defense.

Just as your "optimistic" outlook example is based on a presumption of use, it would only be pessimistic if I were presuming disuse (ie, "now that we've waived Nicholson, the Crabbe signing was pointless because we know Neil won't be able to use the TPE for anything worthwhile..."). However, I didn't do that. I simply made a completely objective if-then statement.

And even if I were being pessimistic, I sure as hell don't need optimism lessons.

 

[dviss1]

Positive or negative outlook, we can't grade it until the TPE is either used or it expires.

There's also addition by subtraction. Crabbe being gone gives someone an opportunity to step up.

 

[blue9]

There's also addition by subtraction. Crabbe being gone gives someone an opportunity to step up.

I don't think this is a case of addition by subtraction. We are clearly worse without Crabbe than with him. There is no heir apparent. And he wasn't a distraction or disruptive. So, other than monetarily, we aren't better off without him. Whether someone (Pat? Jake?) ends up being better than Crabbe shouldn't have an impact on how the trade is graded.
I'm not upset we don't have Crabbe - not by any means! But unless that TPE turns into something useful then Crabbe was a net negative for the Blazers.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I don't think this is a case of addition by subtraction. We are clearly worse without Crabbe than with him. There is no heir apparent. And he wasn't a distraction or disruptive. So, other than monetarily, we aren't better off without him. Whether someone (Pat? Jake?) ends up being better than Crabbe shouldn't have an impact on how the trade is graded.
I'm not upset we don't have Crabbe - not by any means! But unless that TPE turns into something useful then Crabbe was a net negative for the Blazers.

Technically, at least according to 82games.com, Crabbe was a net negative while on the court (-4.6 net on court/off court rating and the team was -2.5 points/48 with Crabbe on the floor).

So, is losing him really a net negative? It all depends on who gets his minutes, either someone on the current roster that steps up or a player acquired with the TPE, and how they perform.

BNM

 

[dviss1]

I don't think this is a case of addition by subtraction. We are clearly worse without Crabbe than with him. There is no heir apparent. And he wasn't a distraction or disruptive. So, other than monetarily, we aren't better off without him. Whether someone (Pat? Jake?) ends up being better than Crabbe shouldn't have an impact on how the trade is graded.
I'm not upset we don't have Crabbe - not by any means! But unless that TPE turns into something useful then Crabbe was a net negative for the Blazers.

When Butters is gone by training camp and we have Melo, Lee, and O'quinn, we'll be better.

 

[chzbrgr]

Technically, at least according to 82games.com, Crabbe was a net negative while on the court (-4.6 net on court/off court rating and the team was -2.5 points/48 with Crabbe on the floor).

So, is losing him really a net negative? It all depends on who gets his minutes, either someone on the current roster that steps up or a player acquired with the TPE, and how they perform.

BNM

It's not crazy to assume PC or napier or a combo of both will pick up the slack from the loss of Crabbe's Herculean 10ppg. Cause that is really all he ever had to offer, 10ppg, we wont miss him one bit.

 

[blue9]

Technically, at least according to 82games.com, Crabbe was a net negative while on the court (-4.6 net on court/off court rating and the team was -2.5 points/48 with Crabbe on the floor).

So, is losing him really a net negative? It all depends on who gets his minutes, either someone on the current roster that steps up or a player acquired with the TPE, and how they perform.

BNM

Looking at B-Ref Crabbe was better than everyone except those who you'd suspect at BPM, VORP, WS. When 2/3rds of the team has a negative net rating, and you get rid of the best of those with a negative rating, then I think it still qualifies as a loss.

 

[blue9]

When Butters is gone by training camp and we have Melo, Lee, and O'quinn, we'll be better.

I wanted to like the first part of this sentence, but the second part gives me pause...

 

[Boob-No-More]

Looking at B-Ref Crabbe was better than everyone except those who you'd suspect at BPM, VORP, WS. When 2/3rds of the team has a negative net rating, and you get rid of the best of those with a negative rating, then I think it still qualifies as a loss.

View attachment 15903 View attachment 15904 View attachment 15905

It all depends on who gets those minutes. Perhaps we use the TPE on a true 3 & D player like Courtney Lee or Jared Dudley who replaces Crabbe's scoring, but also improves our defense.

Or perhaps, you give a guy like Connaughton or Layman Crabbe's minutes surrounded by higher quality teammates, and they play as well, or better than Crabbe in that role. Crabbe made his living on wide open catch and shoot 3-pointers. That was a by-product of the defensive attention his teammates commanded. Put someone else in that role and they may do the same.

Conversely, it will be interesting to see how well Crabbe shoots in BRK this year where he will receive a lot more defensive pressure than he did in POR playing next to a pair of 20+ PPG scoring guards.

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

Looking at B-Ref Crabbe was better than everyone except those who you'd suspect at BPM, VORP, WS. When 2/3rds of the team has a negative net rating, and you get rid of the best of those with a negative rating, then I think it still qualifies as a loss.

View attachment 15903 View attachment 15904 View attachment 15905

I think the bigger story here is that Portland's roster is abysmal after the top four. Lillard, McCollum and Nurkic are great (or probably great in Nurkic's case) and Harkless is a nice complementary player--the rest of the roster is about as enticing as a bag filled with brown recluse spiders.

I'm hopeful that Ed Davis can bounce back from his horrendous season but, as things stand, this is the counterpoint to Olshey's Nurkic deal. A four-man roster that costs nearly as much as Golden State's.

 

[dviss1]

I wanted to like the first part of this sentence, but the second part gives me pause...

Soooo

Butters, Hark, Davis

for

Melo, Lee, O'Quinn

And we're not a better team?

 

[dviss1]

It all depends on who gets those minutes. Perhaps we use the TPE on a true 3 & D player like Courtney Lee or Jared Dudley who replaces Crabbe's scoring, but also improves our defense.

Or perhaps, you give a guy like Connaughton or Layman Crabbe's minutes surrounded by higher quality teammates, and they play as well, or better than Crabbe in that role. Crabbe made his living on wide open catch and shoot 3-pointers. That was a by-product of the defensive attention his teammates commanded. Put someone else in that role and they may do the same.

Conversely, it will be interesting to see how well Crabbe shoots in BRK this year where he will receive a lot more defensive pressure than he did in POR playing next to a pair of 20+ PPG scoring guards.

BNM

And when teams game plan for him. When you can't dribble or create your own shot then what?

 

[blue9]

Soooo

Butters, Hark, Davis

for

Melo, Lee, O'Quinn

And we're not a better team?

This season? Sure. Next season? Probably not.
I'm 100% against trading Harkless for Melo.

 

[blue9]

Or perhaps, you give a guy like Connaughton or Layman Crabbe's minutes surrounded by higher quality teammates, and they play as well, or better than Crabbe in that role.

But we already had Pat/Jake. Paying to get rid of Crabbe doesn't change that.
We paid to get rid of our best bad player - unless that TPE turns into a decent player, then the entire Crabbe experiment turned out negatively for the Blazers.

 

[Boob-No-More]

And when teams game plan for him. When you can't dribble or create your own shot then what?

Yep, Crabbe was assisted on 97% of his 3-pointers last season. Good luck getting those kind of open looks in BRK.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

But we already had Pat/Jake. Paying to get rid of Crabbe doesn't change that.
We paid to get rid of our best bad player - unless that TPE turns into a decent player, then the entire Crabbe experiment turned out negatively for the Blazers.

My point is, given the same opportunity as Crabbe (lots of wide open catch and shoot 3-pointers when playing with Dame, C.J., Nurk, etc.) one of those guys might actually produce at a comparable rate.

But you are right. The value of matching the BRK offer sheet will be determined what we get for the TPE. I'm actually expecting we will get a better player who makes less money, but that's the optimist in me...

BNM